I've been in Southwestern Utah, where the internet connections are iffy-to-impossible and there are towns with names like Virgin and Orderville, one of the sites of early Mormon experiments with communism. Trust me, it didn't work out any better for Orderville than for Kirkutsk.

Or, as my DP said after a gas stop where you must pay inside, "you think the restroom must have a peep hole."

So nothing to report quite yet, except this piece about the Mormons who helped shape the Bush position on torture, from an LDS attorney and former intelligence officer who taught interrogation techniques:

Flanigan once told his LDS
ward congregation that it was gratifying "to work in a White House
where every day was begun with prayer." In 2005, prior to his rejection
by the Senate to be Gonzales' deputy attorney general, Flanigan was
asked whether waterboarding, mock executions, physical beatings and
painful stress positions were off-limits. "[It] depends on the facts
and circumstances... ." He went on: "'Inhumane' can't be coherently
defined."

[...]

Mitchell advised that
suspects must be treated like dogs in a cage. "It's like an experiment,
when you apply electric shocks to a caged dog, after a while, he's so
diminished, he can't resist."

Crowds mean power. Big crowds can burn down valuable private property,
or make strong political points. And the right to assembly is a big
part of the labor movement, so that sqaushing these crowds has been a
central plank in US business policy for a long time. Suburban spaces,
decentralized and spread thin, are far easier to control and police.
It's almost impossible to have a good riot in the 'burbs.

Liz Cheney's appearance on MSNBC defending her father's policies on water boarding and other coercive interrogation techniques didn't get into some important distinctions about torture and its particular application. Interviewer Nora O'Donnell did make the point that the U.S. has prosecuted others for water boarding, and made the "our country as a moral beacon on torture will help protect our troops" argument.

But Cheney fairly effectively countered that when Al-Qaeda captures Americans, they cut their heads off.

Maybe the protection argument had more validity when we warred with other nations, but Cheney is probably correct that being the good guy isn't going to protect our troops from zealots.

But that's not the argument I'd make anyway.

Unless you aspire to becoming a monster, you should not engage in monstrous acts.

Oh, but water boarding isn't torture, says Cheney. It's practically basic training, since we use it in training special forces. I thought the difference between a training session and being in the hands of an enemy was obvious, but apparently not to the Cheney family.

Last December I wrote a nuanced piece about flying the flag, but the commenters had my true number.

So the essayist will only display the flag if the candidate he voted for won the election?
Such fair weather patriotism, so hollow and vacuous.
The canditate I voted for didn't win. But my respect for this nation and its priciples remain intact.
So there!

...and...

Corporations are the difference between us and places like Somalia.

Which last I checked was severely lacking in the government department.

Today, the wind here was whipping the flag so hard it bent the metal mounting bracket straight down from the post where it was attached. Two-thirds of the pole slipped through the bracket and came apart. The flag itself was wrapped around the remaining section and tangled in the bracket.

Columnist John Kay writes about the quest to develop a macroeconomic theory of everything, "based on extreme rationality and market efficiency" — and why economists mostly failed to anticipate the failure of financial markets.

That people respond rationally to incentives, and that market prices incorporate information about the world, are not terrible assumptions. But they are not universal truths either. Much of what creates profit opportunities and causes instability in the global economy results from the failure of these assumptions. Herd behaviour, asset mispricing and grossly imperfect information have led us to where we are today.

There is not, and never will be, an economic theory of everything. Physics may, or may not, be different. But the knowledge we can hope to have in economics is piecemeal and provisional, and different theories will illuminate different but particular situations. We should observe empirical regularities and – as in other applied subjects such as medicine and engineering – we will often find pragmatic solutions that work even though our understanding of why they work is incomplete.

Today I spent my entire shift at the Day Center, where Grand Junction's homeless come to enjoy some of the features (if not comforts) of home — a place to store valuables or extra clothes; coffee; a shower and laundry facility; a telephone, message machine and mailing address.

The mix of guests ranges from chronic homeless to people temporarily down on their luck, from babies of seven months to dessicated old timers of more than 70 years. Every dental variation is represented, from perfect teeth to nothing but gums. Some people look downright normal; a few are clearly disturbed; at least one could play a role in the next Kevin Costner Cowboy movie and a pair of brothers would look right at home on Newhart.

I watched a woman with perhaps five teeth fix her hair for an upcoming job interview, while man carved away at his head with hair clippers. As it became apparent he had nowhere to go but bald, she helped him take it down to his scalp. He looked pretty good.

I listened to a young woman as she wrote an angry letter to her mother. "She says it's my fault," she fumed. Silently, I felt solidarity with the parent telling her daughter a truth about responsibility she didn't want to hear. Later, I learned the mother is an addict who is in prison, and she blames her daughter for her problems.

A man shows up looking for two people to help him move out of his apartment. He'll pay $10 an hour. A couple gets a call from a woman who wants them to tend her yard. They head off for work. So does the father of one of the babies.

There are some really ill-advised tattoos in poorly chosen locations here.

A mother and her 20-ish son stop for a shower on the way out of town. They could be anyone heading to a ballgame, ready to board a flight, waiting for a table. As they wait their turn, the young man sits quietly, observing the others. I wonder if he notices the man next him and how much they resemble each other 15 years removed. Both of them dark and handsome. One hasn't figured out what to do with himself yet. The other may have stopped figuring.

Two young men who are camping rough down by the river stride in. Of all the guests who turn up here, they project the most menace. They wear their hair in long dreds which are not improved by smoke, dirt or the bottle caps one has bent around some of his locks. The other, a bit more clear-eyed and powerful, has a swastika on his inner forearm, one tattoo among many. When he signs in, I notice he is left handed, like the woman writing the letter.

On previous shifts, I've been over at the food pantry and have not been through the routine of closing the place. About 11:30, most remaining guests leave to find a place in line at the nearby soup kitchen. The showers, bathrooms and floors must be swabbed down, trash emptied, coffee post and cups washed and put away.

A few men stick around to help us with these chores. Among them, the two toughs from down by the river. They work efficiently, wiping down the tables and chairs with disinfectant, then stacking them out of the way, vacuuming the reception area and emptying the wastebaskets.

I begin to revise my estimate of the two and recalibrate my antenna once again.

Perhaps they have some community service obligation to work off, but maybe it's just a good impulse. Either way, why should I judge them any differently from the other guests who are helping with these mundane tasks? We're all volunteers here.

It's my last volunteer day before I return to Minnesota and go back to working with kids in the shelter preschool. I started out with kids because I thought it would be more satisfying than working around adults whose mistakes have been made, whose ways are set.

But now, I'm not so sure. I've seen a lot of people struggling and stuck, but also helping each other and trying to do better.

If my tax money is being redistributed to the undeserving, I sure haven't seen much of it land here.

Smart Politics implies Michele Bachmann's mad pursuit of the national right wing media is a strategy for raising money at home.

In short, Congresswoman Bachmann’s increased profile is generating her
more support at the grass roots level – particularly in Minnesota. This
growth can be seen by the fact that Bachmann raised 77.3 percent more
money in contributions from individuals in Q1 2009 than in Q1 2007.
Bachmann even raised 5.0 percent more money from individuals in Q1 2009
than in Q1 2008 – an election year.

Now, Eric Ostermeier of Smart Politics has a PhD in Political Science and I only have a BA in Detecting BS, but I do beg to differ.

First, we don't know if there is any correlation between national media appearances and increased fundraising of any type. Second, the sort of national media Rep. Bachmann is pursuing — Hannity, Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, etc. — are the most receptive outlet for her extremist views. Actual news media, including those in her home district, have higher standards. (Do read the St. Cloud Times link.)

True, Bachmann has raised one percentage point more from Minnesota donors for the quarter than a year ago when she was running for re-election. But she's pulling in a smaller percentage from the state than in 2005 and 2006 when she was first running for national office.

The real story, I think, could be that Bachmann's 1Q 2009 increase in contributions —
both in dollar and percentage terms — was her smallest year-over-year gain ever.

Ostermeier's great revelation, by the way, hinges on a very small swing. National donors gave about $1,000 less and Minnesota donors gave $12,000 more in an off-cycle year.

Bachman’s national profile seems to be generating an
increasing percentage of contributions from individuals, as opposed to
PACS.

Again, there's been no causation established between increased fund raising and making controversial statements and playing loose with the facts. I think a very reasonable premise could be that PACs have figured out Rep. Bachmann will be totally useless in advancing any agenda in Congress. That's been her record so far, and her loony and uncivil critiques will make her even less effective, if that's even possible.

A PAC would rationally redeploy its support to more effective advocates. Individuals might not make their contributions on the same basis.

I will leave it to commentators who are happy digging through FEC reports to add more to the critique. For example, does that $12,000 increase from Minnesota really represent "more support at the grass roots level"?

The conclusion to be drawn from Bachmann's aggressive media strategy seems quite obvious. She's gotten to where she is by being a publicity hound [Note: Original version edited to be more respectful and equally descriptive]. And when you get free attention — especially from the media that reach your core voters — money is secondary.

The CBO numbers I cited concern a widening disparity of income, not wealth or net worth. But, from a Federal Reserve survey covering consumer finances, it appears that the concentration of wealth at the top hasn't changed all that much, and may even have dipped.

Sam Pizzigati runs down the theories — higher taxes on the rich is obviously not one of suspects, but inability to measure wealth accurately is — and considers whether greater personal consumption by the very wealthy might account for why their share of America's wealth isn't growing along with their share of income.

The entire rationale for cutting taxes on the rich rests, after all,
on the notion that the wealthy will “invest” the extra dollars tax cuts
deliver unto them. These investments, the argument goes, will
strengthen the core economy and leave all of us better off.

But if the rich are frittering away their fortunes, they’re not
creating wealth, they’re burning through it. And that, advises the Journal’s
Frank, ought to be “a worrying sign for those who hope that the rich
are sitting on the sidelines with loads of accumulated wealth, ready to
lead us into recovery.”

Of course, the other part of the "entire rationale" is that the outsized consumption by the wealthy trickles down to the rest of the country — which presumably would find its way into the income numbers of the middle class.